A problem with milk before meat

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

What that I posted isn't the truth?

The three statements that I quoted.

1. Brigham tried to incorporate the doctrine into the temple ceremony shortly before his death.  But it was for such a brief period that most who went through it had a rough memory of it at best.  That tells me that it wasn't for a very long period.  So, what do you mean by "for so long"?  As far as we can tell, it was so short that it didn't really make a cultural impression among the Saints.  It seems to me that because Brigham was doing something the Lord REALLY didn't want him doing, He took him out of his position. The next three prophets lived a good bit longer than Brigham did.  And the doctrine was never really sustained by the Church as a whole -- which is a necessary step of canonizing doctrine in our faith.
2. The Church is NOT secretive and confusing about "the meat" (again I still disagree with this meaning of the term since I posted the scriptures in my post above -- but I'll go along for the sake of conversation).  The reason why some papers have been released recently was because of the internet.  The Church has just these past few years been making a big push to utilize the internet for MANY things.  up until about 2010 the Church's utilization of the net was fairly limited.  They were being very careful on how they were going to use it and what they wanted to put out there and to properly format it with search engines and so forth that would be the most appropriate for such scholarly items.  Now that we've basically hit our stride, all sorts of things are being mad available.  And more will continue to be made available as time permits.  But the fact is that such things were available to the public before, there was just the difficulty of disseminating all the information in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner.  And it hasn't been a priority simply because that's not the Church's mission.  The Church's mission is to preach repentance unto all people.  That is the real milk per the scriptures.  And until we can get that going really well, I don't see the need for the Church to make dissemination of obscure information a high priority.
3. The 2nd annointing is NOT secret.  It's simply something that is so obscure and uncommon that it isn't really worth discussing much.  Again, until people have been doing a whole lot more repenting, what good does it do to talk about an ordinance that most will never likely participate in?

Again, you're looking at the distant shore without even looking at the sand beneath your feet or the waters between.  Did Nephi ask for more information about the Promised Land before he started building a ship to get there?  No.  He simply asked,"Where is the ore that I might molten...?" to make the tools (1st step) to then build the ship that would then take him to the Promised Land.  And all the while he paid attention to the Liahona.  It was only when he had shown his faithfulness that he was given visions of his future and the future of his posterity in the Promised Land.

What you're doing is wondering why the Lord didn't tell them about the hot and humid conditions of the new continent and all the different animal life and differences in agriculture that they'd have to deal with in the New World vs. the Old World.  How about if you first obey a simple commandment of getting the brass plates?  You'll find it's hard enough to do just that.  Then try getting through the wilderness for several years.  Then get some ore and wood and build a ship.  Then sail across it.  Then when you get to the distant shore, then He'll tell you about the animals and agriculture.

If you do the proper preparation, maybe it won't seem so confusing to you anymore.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The three statements that I quoted.

1. Brigham tried to incorporate the doctrine into the temple ceremony shortly before his death.  But it was for such a brief period that most who went through it had a rough memory of it at best.  That tells me that it wasn't for a very long period.  So, what do you mean by "for so long"?  As far as we can tell, it was only a couple years (at most -- and probably a lot shorter than that) such that it didn't really make a cultural impression among the Saints.  It seems to me that because Brigham was doing something the Lord didn't approve of, He took him out of his position. The next three prophets lived a good bit longer than Brigham did.  And it was never really sustained by the Church as a whole -- which is a step of canonizing doctrine in our faith.
2. The Church is NOT secretive and confusing about "the meat" (again I still disagree with this meaning of the term since I posted the scriptures in my post above -- but I'll go along for the sake of conversation).  The reason why some papers have been released recently was because of the internet.  The Church has just these past few years been making a big push to utilize the internet for MANY things.  up until about 2010 the Church's utilization of the net was fairly limited.  They were being very careful on how they were going to use it and what they wanted to put out there and to properly format it with search engines and so forth that would be the most appropriate for such scholarly items.  Now that we've basically hit our stride, all sorts of things are being mad available.  And more will continue to be made available as time permits.  But the fact is that such things were available to the public before, there was just the difficulty of disseminating all the information in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner.  And it hasn't been a priority simply because that's not the Church's mission.  The Church's mission is to preach repentance unto all people.  That is the real milk per the scriptures.  And until we can get that going really well, I don't see the need for the Church to make dissemination of obscure information a high priority.
3. The 2nd annointing is NOT secret.  It's simply something that is so obscure and uncommon that it isn't really worth discussing much.  Again, until people have been doing a whole lot more repenting, what good does it do to talk about an ordinance that most will never likely participate in?

Again, you're looking at the distant shore without even looking at the sand beneath your feet or the waters between.  Did Nephi ask for more information about the Promised Land before he started building a ship to get there?  No.  He simply asked,"Where is the ore that I might molten...?" to make the tools (1st step) to then build the ship that would then take him to the Promised Land.  And all the while he paid attention to the Liahona.  It was only when he had shown his faithfulness that he was given visions of his future and the future of his posterity in the Promised Land.

What you're doing is wondering why the Lord didn't tell them about the hot and humid conditions of the new continent and all the different animal life and differences in agriculture that they'd have to deal with in the New World vs. the Old World.  How about if you first obey a simple commandment of getting the brass plates?  You'll find it's hard enough to do just that.  Then try getting through the wilderness for several years.  Then get some ore and wood and build a ship.  Then sail across it.  Then when you get to the distant shore, then He'll tell you about the animals and agriculture.

If you do the proper preparation, maybe it won't seem so confusing to you anymore.

I'll agree with what you say but I hate your attitude towards me and other posters since I joined the board. I need to follow what you say but you need to be nicer, otherwise people won't want to take your advice or hold your opinions with value.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I'll agree with what you say but I hate your attitude towards me and other posters since I joined the board. I need to follow what you say but you need to be nicer, otherwise people won't want to take your advice or hold your opinions with value.

Uhmm.  Not sure if I follow.  I think you may have been reading a lot more into the post than I had intended.  None of what I wrote was meant to be mean or overbearing.  I was pointing out facts.  In my mind, my tone was pretty bland.  What was it that you found so offensive?

Edited September 29, 2016 by Guest

[An Investigator]

Before I joined the Church I read into some more "meater" subjects because I thought it was the best thing to do, I was deciding if to join the Church so I thought I was doing the right thing..  I wasn't, my testimony vanished,  I felt awful,  I couldnt stop thinking about these things and I nearly didn't get baptised, it was only with chatting to a number of people about my difficulties I could see past that.

Now I have a very strong testimony about the Gospel and The Restoration,  it makes me very happy.   Maybe in time I might get round to reading Rough Stone Rolling or research some topics in more depth but for now I'm really content just doing the basics without worrying about stuff which really isn't necessary for my salvation.   

I'm not being ignorant by doing this I just think focusing on my relationship with Heavenly Father is more important than knowing about the second anointing??  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Uhmm.  Not sure if I follow.  I think you may have been reading a lot more into the post than I had intended.  None of what I wrote was meant to be mean or overbearing.  I was pointing out facts.  In my mind, my tone was pretty bland.  What was it that you found so offensive?

I find your whole posting history towards me and others since I joined this site offensive and you probably never realized you were doing it.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I find your whole posting history towards me and others since I joined this site offensive and you probably never realized you were doing it.

Let me be quite honest.  I wasn't trying to be mean.  I'm really concerned about you.  Concern is usually not mistaken for hatred or cruelty.  But that seems to have happened.

My concern for you is that it seems like you're spending more time on anti-Mormon websites than in reading scriptures.  That's a dangerous road, my friend.  Do you realize where you're headed?  This is not criticism.  It's genuine concern.  Now if a jerk like me can be concerned for you, imagine how concerned everyone else is for you.

As for others...  There are two individuals here that I really don't care too much for.  And, yes, I pull no punches with them.  I find them to be quite offensive.  Two others are often mean spirited, but they have their good side.  I'm somewhat ambivalent towards them. Apart from those four, I don't see anyone else that I don't have a decent relationship with except you.  And I'm trying my best to make up for my earlier mistreatment of you, if you'd give me a chance.

It's just that I have a sarcastic sense of humor with many.  But it really is meant in good humor.  And most tend to receive it in that spirit.  I hope one day you will too.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

On 9/28/2016 at 4:25 PM, Zarahemla said:

If the Adam-God doctrine wasn't doctrine, why was it a part of the temple endowment ceremony for so long?

 

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Brigham tried to incorporate the doctrine into the temple ceremony shortly before his death.  But it was for such a brief period that most who went through it had a rough memory of it at best.  That tells me that it wasn't for a very long period.  So, what do you mean by "for so long"?  As far as we can tell, it was so short that it didn't really make a cultural impression among the Saints.  It seems to me that because Brigham was doing something the Lord REALLY didn't want him doing, He took him out of his position. The next three prophets lived a good bit longer than Brigham did.  And the doctrine was never really sustained by the Church as a whole -- which is a necessary step of canonizing doctrine in our faith.

For my part, I'm unconvinced that Adam-God, was actually a part of the temple liturgy at any point. 

Here's what we know:  That Brigham Young is in St. George in early 1877 as the temple there is nearing completion.  He instructs his secretary, L. John Nuttall, to commit the endowment ceremony to written form.  Nuttall's journal entries for February 10, 12, and 13 note that he spent the day writing down various aspects of the endowment ceremony and procedures (including a "lecture"--probably the "lecture at the veil"--on February 10), and then spent each evening with Brigham Young reviewing his work.  However, his journal entries for these dates do not seem to include the actual material he was transcribing. 

Nuttall's journal also records an after-dinner meeting with Brigham Young on February 7, 1877 where "Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation".  Young began by reminiscing about the development of the endowment in Nauvoo, and then proceeded to offer a discourse about creation, Adam and Eve, and the parenthood of Jesus that was all pretty classic Adam-God.  This, many writers assume, is the basis for the lecture at the veil that Nuttall will transcribe three days later. 

But, here's the thing:  At no point does Nuttall's journal itself tie the February 7 discourse with the "lecture at the veil", or any other part of the temple ceremony.  Other than the chronology, there is no real link.  And if you think about it--if your job is to write down something that someone else says, why are you going to wait for three days to do it? 

And, the Church had been administering the endowment regularly since 1855 when the Endowment House was completed.  If Adam-God were part of the 1855 endowment, then why is Orson Pratt publicly disagreeing with Young over Adam-God in 1868?  If Nuttall's unambiguous, February 7 text were added to the endowment in 1877 and was uniformly included thereafter, then why are Church members debating the issue in 1895; and why is the Church pooh-poohing Adam-God in the 1902 Improvement Era and consistently disavowing it for the rest of the 20th century? 

I don't doubt that Nuttall and his contemporaries (including, most obviously, Brigham Young) saw connections between Adam-God and the temple ceremony.  The ceremony as practiced during the Territorial period may have even had hints pointing in that direction.  But in the absence of the actual documents from the St. George temple's archives I'm inclined to believe that Young's February 7 teachings were intended merely as a fireside chat, not as an integral part of the endowment. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Two others are often mean spirited, but they have their good side.

Sheesh!  How many times do I have to say I'm sorry before you'll let it drop already!

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Let me be quite honest.  I wasn't trying to be mean.  I'm really concerned about you.  Concern is usually not mistaken for hatred or cruelty.  But that seems to have happened.

My concern for you is that it seems like you're spending more time on anti-Mormon websites than in reading scriptures.  That's a dangerous road, my friend.  Do you realize where you're headed?  This is not criticism.  It's genuine concern.  Now if a jerk like me can be concerned for you, imagine how concerned everyone else is for you.

As for others...  There are two individuals here that I really don't care too much for.  And, yes, I pull no punches with them.  I find them to be quite offensive.  Two others are often mean spirited, but they have their good side.  I'm somewhat ambivalent towards them. Apart from those four, I don't see anyone else that I don't have a decent relationship with except you.  And I'm trying my best to make up for my earlier mistreatment of you, if you'd give me a chance.

It's just that I have a sarcastic sense of humor with many.  But it really is meant in good humor.  And most tend to receive it in that spirit.  I hope one day you will too.

Fine then let's be peaceful.

[Edspringer]

21 hours ago, NightSG said:

And yet, in just a couple of years, you could learn to use heavy equipment and explosives to do just that.  Maybe we should look at their teaching methods.

 “If ye have faith and doubt not…if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.” (Mathew 21:21).

 

"For the brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove — and it was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have moved; wherefore thou workest after men have faith” (Ether 12:30).

 

“And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done” (1 Nephi 17:50).

 

“And it came to pass that when Satan had departed from the presence of Moses, that Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son; And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God” (Moses 1:24-25).

[NightSG]

9 hours ago, Edspringer said:

 “If ye have faith and doubt not…if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.” (Mathew 21:21).

But then the GIS people get mad at having to put out major updates constantly.

[Sunday21]

23 hours ago, zil said:

Sheesh!  How many times do I have to say I'm sorry before you'll let it drop already!

I also have my good side! Double sheesh!

[Sunday21]

Zarah..

i am also worried about you. How's that Book of Mormon reading and praying going?

[zil]

October 2016 General Conference, Saturday afternoon session, talk by W. Mark Bassett of the Seventy - seems relevant to this conversation, however you want to define milk and meat. (Just ended.)

[Sunday21]

On 2016-09-29 at 0:54 PM, Carborendum said:

The 5th of November.

Just out of interest are you a Guy Fawkes fan? Gunpowder and treason?

[Sunday21]

4 hours ago, zil said:

October 2016 General Conference, Saturday afternoon session, talk by W. Mark Bassett of the Seventy - seems relevant to this conversation, however you want to define milk and meat. (Just ended.)

Yeah, I thought this while I was listening.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Just out of interest are you a Guy Fawkes fan? Gunpowder and treason?

The farther I see the path this country is taking, the closer I get to saying "yes".

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Just out of interest are you a Guy Fawkes fan? Gunpowder and treason?

 I had a co-worker who was from Anglo-Canada. We were talking about Guy Fawkes day and he assumed I knew nothing about it because I'm a stupid American, after all. When I started telling him about the Gunpowder plot, he was so surprised. 

Never assume boys and girls. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

On 9/30/2016 at 8:09 PM, Sunday21 said:

Zarah..

i am also worried about you. How's that Book of Mormon reading and praying going?

I'm good, enjoying the conference talks, especially about Jesus. 

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I'm good, enjoying the conference talks, especially about Jesus. 

Got any particular favorites?  I loved Sis. Stephens.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Got any particular favorites?  I loved Sis. Stephens.

I loved Quentin L Cooks talk.

[Laniston]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 I had a co-worker who was from Anglo-Canada. We were talking about Guy Fawkes day and he assumed I knew nothing about it because I'm a stupid American, after all. When I started telling him about the Gunpowder plot, he was so surprised. 

Never assume boys and girls. 

Anglo-Canada.........that is funny. (Because Canada is a predominantly English speaking country)-_-

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Laniston said:

Anglo-Canada.........that is funny. (Because Canada is a predominantly English speaking country)-_-

Right, I said it to differentiate between Quebec and the rest of the country. 

[Sunday21]

15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Got any particular favorites?  I loved Sis. Stephens.

Bro Holland!

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Right, I said it to differentiate between Quebec and the rest of the country. 

Yes, that's what we call nonQuebecers or ROC (rest of Canada). Ironicallly the population of Quebec was dwindling which, giggle, caused the Quebec province to embrace immigration. Now Canada is moderately open to newcomers with the exception of one province that shall remain nameless. Giggle. so we were treated to the spectacle of our bros/sis struggling to embrace those who were, gaffaw, different from themselves, snort, or lose political clout, over taken by hysterical laughter at this point. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Sunday21